| Literature DB >> 23028763 |
Javier Quinto1, Ma Ángeles Marcos-García, Cecilia Díaz-Castelazo, Víctor Rico-Gray, Hervé Brustel, Eduardo Galante, Estefanía Micó.
Abstract
Saproxylic insect communities inhabiting tree hollow microhabitats correspond with large food webs which simultaneously are constituted by multiple types of plant-animal and animal-animal interactions, according to the use of trophic resources (wood- and insect-dependent sub-networks), or to trophic habits or interaction types (xylophagous, saprophagous, xylomycetophagous, predators and commensals). We quantitatively assessed which properties of specialised networks were present in a complex networks involving different interacting types such as saproxylic community, and how they can be organised in trophic food webs. The architecture, interacting patterns and food web composition were evaluated along sub-networks, analysing their implications to network robustness from random and directed extinction simulations. A structure of large and cohesive modules with weakly connected nodes was observed throughout saproxylic sub-networks, composing the main food webs constituting this community. Insect-dependent sub-networks were more modular than wood-dependent sub-networks. Wood-dependent sub-networks presented higher species degree, connectance, links, linkage density, interaction strength, and were less specialised and more aggregated than insect-dependent sub-networks. These attributes defined high network robustness in wood-dependent sub-networks. Finally, our results emphasise the relevance of modularity, differences among interacting types and interrelations among them in modelling the structure of saproxylic communities and in determining their stability.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23028763 PMCID: PMC3460928 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Ecological and network attributes modelling saproxylic sub-networks.
| Network metrics | |||||||||||||
| Network | SP | TH | NODF | M | L/S | C | LD | H2 | V-ratio | PE | RPE | SE | RSE |
| Red | 158 | 87 | 13.11 | 1 | 4.82 | 0.086 |
|
| 14.72 |
|
|
|
|
| Direct | 104 | 86 | 15.37 | 1 | 4.69 | 0.099 |
|
| 16.38 |
|
|
|
|
| Indirect | 54 | 73 | 11.76 | 1 | 2.284 | 0.074 | 6.618 | 0.545 | 8.97 | 2.723 | 0.722 | 7.48 | 0.866 |
| Xylophagous | 21 | 80 | 24.24 | 1 | 2.614 | 0.157 | 10.321 | 0.453 | 20.02 | 2.1 | 0.667 | 6.658 | 0.857 |
| Saprophagous | 45 | 81 | 13.93 | 1 | 2.575 | 0.089 | 7.562 | 0.542 | 10.87 | 2.725 | 0.72 | 8.431 | 0.881 |
| Xylomycetophagous | 38 | 82 | 17.57 | 1 | 2.525 | 0.097 | 11.296 | 0.364 | 19.27 | 2.569 | 0.712 | 7.878 | 0.87 |
| Predators | 26 | 66 | 12.38 | 2 | 1.576 | 0.086 | 5.568 | 0.601 | 6.65 | 1.499 | 0.592 | 4.6 | 0.793 |
| Commensals | 28 | 61 | 14.23 | 3 | 1.629 | 0.085 | 6.241 | 0.601 | 11.53 | 1.74 | 0.628 | 5.124 | 0.825 |
Values impossible to obtain because the matrix size blocks the running of the programme.
SP: number of interacting insect species nodes (higher trophic level); TH: number of interacting tree hollow nodes (lower trophic level); NODF: nestedness as NODF estimator; M: number of isolated modules; L/S: links per species; C: connectance; LD: linkage density; H2′: specialisation; V-ratio: variance ratio; PE: extinction slope of higher trophic level for a random extinction (100 replicates); RPE: robustness for a random extinction; SE: secondary extinction slope of the higher trophic level for a selective extinction of the most interconnected nodes (100 replicates); RSE: robustness for a directed extinction.
Variation of number of sub-modules.
| Number of sub-modules | ||||||
| Network | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Complete network | 4 | 28 | 48 | 20 | – | – |
| Direct | – | 44 | 48 | 8 | – | – |
| Indirect | – | 12 | 40 | 48 | – | – |
| Xylophagous | 12 | 84 | 4 | – | – | – |
| Saprophagous | 4 | 4 | 64 | 24 | 4 | – |
| Xylomycetophagous | 12 | 68 | 20 | – | – | – |
| Predators | – | – | 4 | 36 | 40 | 20 |
| Commensals | – | – | 4 | 16 | 52 | 28 |
Number of sub-modules present in each sub-network, expressed as the percentage of times with the same number of sub-modules from the 25 randomisations arbitrarily considered.
Figure 1Ecological role diagram.
Ecological role diagram for the saproxylic guilds and tree hollows, showing their role distribution along ecological regions in the z-P parameter space. This representation showed that the higher proportion of nodes belonged to non-hubs R1 (24.18%), R2 (29.91%), and R3 (37.3%), corresponding with the 91.39% of the nodes, what implicates a constant predominance of weak connections and a similar role composition along sub-modules and saproxylic trophic guilds. The number of hub nodes was low, and they normally corresponded with kinless hub (R7) tree hollow nodes heterogeneously connected along sub-modules. So role-to-role connectivity often happened among R1-R2-R3 and in less extent among R7-R1/R2/R3.
Figure 2Sub-networks robustness.
Random (1–5) and directed (6–10) extinction curve obtained for each feeding guild: xylophagous (X), saprophagous (SX), xylomycetophagous (XM), predators (P), and commensals (C), showing a relative high network robustness to both random and directed extinction simulations in all the trophic levels considered, being wood-dependent guilds more robust than insect-dependent guilds.